Propaganda film from Stonewall to be shown in all secondary schools
It is one of the big issues of our age. For some reason. Fake charity Stonewall gets your tax money to promote homosexuality and has made a film that is to be shown in all secondary schools next month. Apparently, some children are using the word ‘gay’ as a derogatory term and this has been called ‘homophobic bullying’.
The trailer for the film FIT is a slick production designed to confuse humanity in the minds of children who trust the grown-up world to tell them the truth.
As I commented on The Guardian’s website,
I wonder when people are going to get wise to Stonewall’s tactics. The blueprint for a ‘gay’ America, “The Overhauling of Straight America” starts just like this trailer,
“The first order of business is desensitization of the American public concerning gays and gay rights. To desensitize the public is to help it view homosexuality with indifference instead of with keen emotion. Ideally, we would have straights register differences in sexual preference the way they register different tastes for ice cream or sports games: she likes strawberry and I like vanilla; he follows baseball and I follow football. No big deal.”
Why is this so-called charity receiving public money to peddle their propaganda to children? I think it is terrible that Stonewall is manipulating vulnerable children into believing that homosexuality is just another of those things, like skin, eye and hair colour.
Is it true that encouraging children to identify with a sexuality at an early age leads to suicidal feelings?
Does anyone care, or is this warped sense of ‘equality’ all that matters anymore?
As usual I was pretty much a lone voice crying in the wilderness. Such has been the conditioning to accept homosexuality as normal and harmless, Guardian readers fail to understand that there is an opposite side of the coin where teenagers are troubled by the pressure to identify with a sexuality when their hormones are all over the place and they have many other things to be concerned about, like exams.
From the article Which Gay Teens Attempt Suicide?
The researchers say that suicide attempts appear to be related to “coming out” at a younger age, gender atypicality, low self-esteem…
Two key points can be inferred from these studies. First, that treatment for Gender Identity Disorder of Childhood (GID), which is now under strong attack from within the psychological profession, may indeed be therapeutic for prevention of suicide attempts in adolescence. Gay and feminist advocacy groups have been lobbying for deletion of the diagnostic category.
In contrast, clinicians such as Kenneth Zucker and Susan Bradley believe that it is ethical and therapeutic to help children become more comfortable with their biological maleness or femaleness (Gender Identity Disorder and Psychosexual Problems in Children and Adolescents, 1995, New York: Guilford Press) and to alleviate the emotional and family problems often associated with childhood gender nonconformity.
Second, since early gay-self-labeling is associated with attempted suicide, it seems unwise to encourage young people to label themselves as gay during the volatile teenage years. The teen years serve as a transitional phase when affectional, emotional and identification needs can be eroticized. “No service is done to our children by offering them lifestyle options before they are properly able to make informed choices about them,” says Dr. George Rekers, professor of neuropsychiatry and a specialist in psychosexual disorders at the University of South Carolina School of Medicine.
This really is a shocking indictment of Stonewall’s tactics and needs to be addressed urgently.
Someone calling himself danny360 insults me and adds,
Ask a hundred gay people, a million, ten million. Every single one will tell you they did not choose their sexuality, because it is NOT a choice, any more than height or skin colour. It is NOT a ‘lifestyle option’.
This is a very common and ignorant belief and the one which Stonewall wishes to perpetuate with its film. Peter Tatchell writes in an article entitled Homosexuality isn’t natural that sexuality is far more complex than people think:
Many studies suggest social factors are also important influences in the formation of sexual orientation. These include the relationship between a child and its parents, formative childhood experiences, family expectations, cultural mores and peer pressure.
This new film will affect the three factors I have highlighted. I consider this to be child abuse by a state-funded organisation.
And don’t expect the Tories to have any sense of proportion either. They have recently apologised for Section 28 – the legislation that protected children from this sort of propaganda.
I agree with you entirely about this Stewart. It’s brainwashing of children. Social engineering and government thinks we won’t notice the use of public money in this sordid promotion.
Children do not need sexuality to be ‘taught’ to them. They’re not being allowed to live childhoods anymore.
Peter Tatchell is a nasty piece of work who managed to get himself into the public arena by allegedly having quite a bit on a few of our political representatives.
Time we woke up to this. Let people find their own sexuality. It’s a personal thing not for public consumption. At least that’s how I see it in my own moral code.
Thank you, Rosie, I appreciate your comments. They’re not being allowed to live childhoods anymore because they have to be made dysfunctional to be good little slaves later on. I wonder if the parents will be asked if their children can watch it. Not much hope.
Peter Tatchell is not my favourite bloke, but at least he doesn’t try to perpetuate the myth that someone has to engage in homosexual behaviour because they were born that way. It would be interesting to know what he has and on whom. Blair bent over backwards to do everything for Stonewall, as Ian McKellen admitted.
From Fakecharities.org:
“In 2007, Stonewall received a total of £2,883,267, mostly from various other opaque and not-so-opaque charitable trusts and foundations of one sort and another. However, it did receive a good chunk of its funding (23.6%) from the state.”
So, money is effectively being laundered through the system via government departments, trusts, foundations, corporations, and ‘charities’ and ending up in Stonewall’s coffers so they can re-engineer society on behalf of the government.
I no longer get annoyed at this sort of tosh, I have become numb to it. That does not mean that I am willing to accept it or not speak against it.
If anybody attempts to show anything of the sort to my kids, in the words of Officer McKye, ‘Feet will not touch!’
As an aside, I notice the trailer contains a disproportionate (to the current UK demographic) amount of ethnicities which are clearly not British. Kill two birds with one stone, eh?
I don’t think I’ll ever be numb to it as such, although you have to put it on the ‘back burner’ and get on with your own life. We could do with Fulton McKay telling Ben Summerskill where to stick his film. Or Windsor Davies from ‘It Ain’t Half Hot, Mum’ talking to Mr. ‘Lah-de-Da’ Gunner Graham!
Did you notice in the trailer that they start off by confusing matters with the skin colour being mentioned by someone of a different colour? Later on, when we get to hair colour, it’s the right person saying their own hair colour. Then we have a black girl calling herself ‘fair’. Maybe they are trying to numb the impressionable mind so the message can sink into it?
I didn’t choose my sexual orientation. Did you choose yours Stewart?
Don’t misunderstand me, I didn’t mean that I have been swayed by force of argument, just exhausted by the constant onslaught and a sad realisation that almost everybody under the age of 30 disagrees with me. I have basically retreated into a defensive position, letting the world burn whilst attempting to shield me and mine from the flames.
How can a ’socialist’ prime minister fund this garbage fake charity with more money than he pledged to those devastated by flooding in Cockermouth? Why are some of our people still homeless from this natural disaster whilst the Prime Mentalist is shipping relief, men, machines and vast amounts of money to Haiti?
In 1983 Rekers was on the founding board of the Family Research Council, a non-profit Christian lobbying organization.
Nuff said.
OK, not quite nuff said:
‘Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Cindy Lederman ruled against the state. In her decision, she said “Dr. Rekers’ testimony was far from a neutral and unbiased recitation of the relevant scientific evidence. Dr. Rekers’ beliefs are motivated by his strong ideological and theological convictions that are not consistent with the science. Based on his testimony and demeanor at trial, the court can not consider his testimony to be credible nor worthy of forming the basis of public policy’.
Anytime I see you quoting an ‘expert’ on this issue Stewart I tend to assume that you are selecting someone whose religious views coincide with yours and rejecting the ideas of anyone else. I tend to be right. You are not quoting scientists – you are quoting believers but nonetheless cloaking your sources in a false aura of scintific respectability. I call that downright deceitful.
You still haven’t apologised for adducing the ‘Lucy’ picture as evidence that evolutionists distort their findings.
Dr Baxter,
I do not know whether this scientific fact will upset you, but fact it is.
The introduction of human semen into the bloodstream of another human, through , for example, the anal wall, which is in places only one cell thick, causes enormous damage to the body’s ‘T’ and ‘B’ cells, resulting in damage to the immune system, irrespective of whether that semen contains HIV. In some places in the world, there is a 40% chance that it will contain this virus, or another, equally deadly virus.
Homosexuality is not normal, healthy or desirable in a modern society. Irrespective of religious views. Teaching children that it is appears to me to be a recipe for disaster.
James Justice,
I try to distance myself from sin, though often fail, naturally. However, perhaps had I fully explored all the ‘options’ I would have been addicted to all manner of carnal pleasures. I guess it’s still not too late to see what all the fuss is about.
Doesn’t make it good or right, does it? So, I suppose you could say I chose to be heterosexual.
Jim,
I quoted from the article in good faith. Obviously I don’t have the time to check everyone’s credentials, but the great thing about blogs is that errors can be rectified, so thank you!
Also, the mainstream today loves to attack an argument based on who’s saying it rather than whether it’s true or not. He’s a Christian, so presumably his view is biased, etc.
Obviously I’m going to quote people who share my opinion. I’m not going to quote Dawkins to explain Noah’s Flood when I can quote from someone whose opinion I share and respect, like Dr. Taz Walker. Ken?
English, I have found that facts don’t matter to a lot of people. Common sense and logic appear to have flown south too. We know what the father of lies, the devil, is doing in our country: turning truth and goodness into lies and evil in the hearts of men.
I think it is necessary to refute the fake pseudo-medical statements made by “English Viking” – the correct medical evidence is below
Part 3: “Rectal Sex”
In Which a Popular Urban Legend Makes Its Appearance
Jim Burroway
January 31, 2006; revised October 15, 2006
Now that Dr. Cameron has explored the familiar territory of oral sex, he is ready to launch into a more lurid description of anal sex (or “rectal sex”, as he prefers to call it). Unlike the previous topic, the typical reader will likely find this section of Medical Consequences rather gruesome. Dr. Cameron feeds on this squeamishness by describing this topic in particularly shocking and violent terms. The way he describes it, most gay men may find these descriptions disturbing — and alien. So prepare yourself; this is not for the weak of stomach.
Surveys indicate that about 90% of gays have engaged in rectal intercourse, and about two-thirds do it regularly. In a 6-month long study of daily sexual diaries,3 gays averaged 110 sex partners and 68 rectal encounters a year.
Rectal sex is dangerous… Since sperm readily penetrate the rectal wall (which is only one cell thick) causing immunologic damage, and tearing or bruising of the anal wall is very common during anal/penile sex, these substances gain almost direct access to the blood stream. Unlike heterosexual intercourse (in which sperm cannot penetrate the multilayered vagina and no feces are present),7 rectal intercourse is probably the most sexually efficient way to spread hepatitis B, HIV, syphilis and a host of other blood-borne diseases.
Tearing or ripping of the anal wall is especially likely with “fisting,” where the hand and arm is inserted into the rectum. It is also common when “toys” are employed (homosexual lingo for objects which are inserted into the rectum — bottles, carrots, even gerbils8)… Fisting was apparently so rare in Kinsey’s time that he didn’t think to talk about it. By 1977, well over a third of gays admitted to doing it…
3. Weinberg George. Society and the Healthy Homosexual. (New York: St. Martin”s Press, 1972): Preface.
7. Mavligit, Gloria M.; Talpaz, Moshe; Hsia, Flora T.; Wong, Wendy; Lichtiger, Benjamin; Mansell, Peter W.A. “Chronic immune stimulation by sperm alloantigens: Support for the hypothesis that spermatozoa induce immune dysregulation in homosexual males.” Journal of the American Medical Association 251, no. 2 (January 13, 1984): 237-241.
8. Cecil Adams, “The Straight Dope,” THE READER (Chicago, 3/28/86) [Adams writes authoritatively on counter-culture material, his column is carried in many alternative newspapers across the U.S. and Canada]. (sic. – ed.)
Dr. Cameron appears to have mistakenly cited reference #3 when he should have cited reference #5:
5. Corey Lawrence; Holmes, King K. “Sexual transmission of hepatitis A in homosexual men.” New England Journal of Medicine 302, no. 8 (February 21, 1980): 435-438.
Once again, Dr. Cameron refers only to gay men, and continues to ignore lesbians in this section.
The details of the Corey & Holmes study were first discussed here.
“In a 6-month long study of daily sexual diaries, gays averaged 110 sex partners and 68 rectal encounters a year.” This statistic from the “daily sexual diaries,” is referenced to the wrong source. It should refer to Corey & Holmes (#5), which, as we discussed in the previous section, consisted of 96 STD clinic patients, and only supported an average of less than 24 sexual partners per year.
“…sperm readily penetrate the rectal wall (which is only one cell thick)… Unlike heterosexual intercourse (in which sperm cannot penetrate the multilayered vagina…), rectal intercourse is probably the most sexually efficient way to spread hepatitis B, HIV, syphilis…” For this assertion, Dr. Cameron cites Mavligit, et al. (#7), which he misspells “Manligit” here and in many other publications. Mavligit, et al. does not assert that the sperm “readily penetrates the rectal wall (which is only one cell thick)”. Instead they note that under certain circumstances, sperm may leak through lacerations and bruising of the wall, but they don’t claim that this occurs every time. They don’t even speculate on whether this may be a common occurance or not.
Furthermore, Mavligit, et al. does not claim that anal intercourse is “the most sexually efficient way” to spread the long list of diseases that Dr. Cameron cites. But Mavligit, et al. did guess that HIV might be more readily transmitted by anal intercourse. They based their guess on the hypothesis that the presence of sperm was lowering the immune systems of gay men. (This report was written before researchers learned that AIDS was caused by a virus.)
The arguments put forward by Mavligit, et al. hinge on the presumed vulnerability of the “delicate” rectum, despite the fact that it is a highly elastic organ designed to pass material of a variety of sizes and textures without injury, even under conditions of constipation.
Medical professionals are just as vulnerable to biases and erroneous assumptions as the general public, and these biases were more pervasive twenty-five years ago than they are today. Before the onset of the AIDS epidemic, homosexual activity was rarely studied and researchers were more likely to be unfamiliar and uncomfortable with descriptions of sexual activity.
This image of the “vulnerable rectum” verses the “rugged vagina” was accepted as fact by many researchers in the 1980’s. This led many to conclude that AIDS would remain a gay disease spread by anal sex. They believed the “rugged vagina” would protect women from the disease as long as intercourse was “normal” and non-violent.OO
Today, we know that heterosexual women can become infected with HIV through unprotected vaginal intercourse. In 2004, 33% of all new HIV/AIDS diagnosis in the United States came from heterosexual contact.PP Meanwhile, 59% of all HIV/AIDS diagnosis in Great Britain were heterosexually acquired,QQ and HIV/AIDS has always been a predominantly heterosexual epidemic in Africa (where the disease originated) and in parts of the Caribbean.RR
If the vagina were so rugged, how could this happen? According to the Centers for Disease Control, “the lining of the vagina can sometimes tear and possibly allow HIV to enter the body. HIV can also be directly absorbed through the mucous membranes that line the vagina and cervix.”SS When it comes to disease, the vagina is quite vulnerable.
“It (tearing or ripping) is also common when “toys” are employed (homosexual lingo for objects which are inserted into the rectum — bottles, carrots, even gerbils.” Dr. Cameron provides an unusual definition of “toys”, ignoring the far more generally understood definition to include vibrators, phalluses (“dildos”), and other sexual aides which are used among heterosexuals as well. These “toys” are manufactured to be used safely by heterosexuals as well as homosexuals, and are subject to the same product liability laws which result in everything from safe cars to safe stepladders. Characterizing “toys” as “bottles, carrots, even gerbils” is an obvious attempt to disgust the reader.
“…even gerbils.” Yes, he even brings out the famous gerbil legend. His citation of Cecil Adams’s (#8) “The Straight Dope” column is unusual, to say the least. I have left Dr. Cameron’s source citation as he wrote it, with its odd endorsement that “Adams writes authoritatively on counter-cultural material.” This is certainly a different tone of authority than the scientific studies that Dr. Cameron prefers to use. Perhaps it is because he wasn’t able to find a single documented instance in all of the medical literature of “gerbiling”.
But it appears that in Dr. Cameron’s zeal to document this juicy tidbit, he neglected to actually read Cecil Adams’ column. If he had, he would have read Mr. Adams describe his search for the source of this story this way:
I have checked with numerous sources in both the gay and medical communities, and though everybody has heard about gerbil stuffing, every attempt to track down an actual case has come to naught. The whole business sounds completely nuts, and implausible to boot.”TT
Dr. Cameron attempts to document this “fact” with a source that actually asserts the opposite!
The details of Jay & Young’s The Gay Report were first discussed here. More information can be found in our review of The Gay Report.
“By 1977, well over a third of gays admitted to doing it (fisting).” For this, he appears to direct the reader’s attention to column 2 of the table of “Homosexual Activities” where he combines “fisting” with “toys”. But according to his table, only 22% of this population is “doing it” by 1977, not over a third. And remember, Jay & Young (#13) was the informal survey that generated a response rate barely over 1%, leading critics to question the motivations of the very few who participated.
The details of the Paul Cameron’s ISIS survey were first discussed here.
The details of the Jaffe, et al. study were first discussed here.
And if, by chance, he intends to direct the reader’s attention to either column three or four, then we still have problems with this statistic. His own ISIS survey for column three suffers from a response rate of only 23.6% (along with several other methodological problems), and the Jaffe et al. study for column for four was based on a study population in which three-fourths were drawn from STD clinics. So no matter which column of his table he’s referring to, there is simply no valid support for this statistic.
Is Dr. Cameron Believable?
You be the judge. Not only is the entire “Rectal Sex” section composed of statistics which are not representative of the general gay male population, we see that in the case of “gerbiling” his reference directly contradicts his claim.
But let’s not deny the obvious: very large numbers of gay men engage in anal intercourse. As uncomfortable as this fact may be for some, it is undeniable — even though the precise numbers cannot be known. But by focusing the reader’s attention towards the “ickiness” of gay men having sex, Dr. Cameron reinforces his straight audience’s squeamishness on the subject. And since many straight male readers don’t find the idea of lesbians having sex to be “icky” (indeed, many find it eroticUU), lesbians have been completely absent so far. The pamphlet’s focus on the “ick” factor follows a very familiar pattern in anti-gay literature.
But not all straight couples find anal sex “icky.” In Melbye, et al. (#31), which Dr. Cameron cites elsewhere in Medical Consequences, (and which is his only source that is based on a truly randomized sample) 21.7% of heterosexual women reported that they participated in anal sex with their male partners.VV Dr. Cameron finds it convenient not to mention this.
Other surveys report similar numbers. The 1991 National Survey of Men was a nationally representative study of 3,321 men aged 20-39 in the United States (response rate: 70%), 20% reported having had anal sex with a woman at least once in the previous ten years.WW The 1992 National Health and Social Life survey, another nationally representative study of 3,159 adults between the ages of 18-59 (response rate: 80%), reported that 25.6% of men and 20.4% of women reported having had anal sex with an opposite-sex partner at least once.XX And in the 2002-2003 National Survey of Family Growth conducted by the CDC, 12,571 adults between the ages of 15 and 44 years of age (response rate: 79%) reported that 34% of men and 30% of women reported having had anal intercourse with the opposite sex.YY
But if Dr. Cameron didn’t know about these nationally representative surveys, he surely knew the results of his own (“Effect of Homosexuality Upon Public Health and Social Order”, #6), which shows 36% of 1,261 heterosexual men participating in anal sex with women.ZZ If true, there are far more straight couples engaging in anal sex (466 in his survey) than gay male couples (only 38). If anal sex is really as dangerous a health hazard that Dr. Cameron says it is, then he completely misses his own data which shows that heterosexuals engage in this activity in far greater numbers than homosexuals.
And finally, despite all that you may have heard, the gerbil story is truly an urban myth.
Please continue with:
Part 4: “Fecal Sex”. Where Dr. Cameron’s creativity really shines.
Notes:
OO. Triechler, Paula. How to Have Theory in an Epidemic (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1999): 239-241. [BACK]
PP. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report 16 (Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2005): 10. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/2004SurveillanceReport.pdf (PDF: 990KB/46 pages). [BACK]
QQ. The UK Collaborative Group for HIV and STD Surveillance. Mapping the Issues: HIV and other Sexually Transmitted Infections in the United Kingdom: 2005. (London: Health Protection Agency Centre for Infections, November 2005): 13. Available online at http://www.hpa.org.uk/hpa/publications/hiv_sti_2005/pdf/MtI_FC_report.pdf (PDF: 4,925KB/120 pages). [BACK]
RR. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS UNAIDS 2004 Report on the Global AIDS Epidemic. (2004). Also available online at http://www.unaids.org/bangkok2004/report_pdf.html. For a discussion on the spread of HIV/AIDS among the heterosexual population in Africa, see Chapter 2, page 30. [BACK]
SS. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Divisions of HIV/AIDS Prevention. Can I Get HIV From Vaginal Sex? Web page, from the Frequently Asked Questions section at http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pubs/faq/faq21.htm (accessed February 2, 2005). [BACK]
TT. Adams, Cecil. “Is it true what they say about gerbils?” The Straight Dope. (Undated). Web page posted online at http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_216b (accessed March 18, 2004.) [BACK]
UU. Whitley, Bernard E., Jr.; Wiederman, Michael W.; Wryobeck, John M. “Correlates of heterosexual men’s eroticization of lesbianism.” Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality 11, no. 1 (1999): 25-41. [BACK]
VV. Melbye, Mads; Biggar, Robert J. “Interactions between persons at risk for AIDS and the general population in Denmark.” American Journal of Epidemiology 135, no. 6 (March 15, 1992): 593-602. [BACK]
WW. Billy, John O.G.; Tanfer, Koray; Grady, William R.; Klepinger, Daniel H. “The sexual behavior of men in the United States.” Family Planning Perspectives 25, no. 2 (March 1993): 52-60. [BACK]
XX. Lauman, Edward O.; Gagnon, John H.; Michael, Robert T.; Michaels, Stuart. The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994): Table 3.6. [BACK]
YY. Mosher, William D.; Chandra, Anjani; Jones, Jo. “Sexual Behavior and selected health measures: Men and women 15-44 years of age, United States, 2002.” Advance Data from Vital and Health Statistics no. 362 (Atlanta: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2005): Table 7. Available online at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/ad/ad362.pdf (PDF: 1,235KB/56 pages). [BACK]
ZZ. Cameron, Paul; Cameron, Kirk; Proctor, Kay. “Effect of homosexuality upon public health and social order.” Psychological Reports 64, no. 3 (June 1989): 1167-1179. [BACK]
About Us | Mission and Principles | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
Bullying
None of the individuals above/below sadly and shamefully address the issue of bullying of a minority of pupils in schools by others. No one and certainly not I are suggesting that anybody should be encouraged to be anything but from the above it would seem to be OK to bully people who either are, perceive themselves to be or are perceived to be different – how sad and what embarrassment……………..
James Langstone,
The fact that STD’s are being transmitted amongst heterosexuals at a higher rate than homosexuals is to be expected, they outnumber by at least 10-1. I do not single out homosexuality for any special condemnation, I think that children do not need to know these things and young adults should be taught that all forms of promiscuity are morally wrong and physically dangerous. That heterosexuals should engage in anal sex is equally dangerous and disgusting.
With regard to bullying, it seems to me that children are being taught from birth that they are entitled to do, say and think whatever they like and that anyone who disagrees with them, on anything, is a bully. You can score double victim points if you are ‘bullied’ (critisised?) for having a sexual attraction to someone else’s tradesman’s entrance. Armies of hand-stroking counsellors and advisors reinforce this nonsense. Learning to deal with people who are hostile, rude or otherwise objectionable is part of growing up, part of normal life. I do not wish to see confused teens being encouraged to accept that they are homosexual because they somehow sense a ’cause’ to be contended for, a struggle to be fought, that they should be the one to stand up for all the poor, bullied gays the world over (think Emily Pankhurst syndrome) but this is exactly what is happening.
BTW, The Lancet have printed articles on how dangerous homosexuality is, so it isn’t just one ‘krank’ as you appear to wish.